Verset Perfume Theft Pharmacist Granted Return to Practice Under Conditions

Date of Decision: August 25, 2026

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

The registrant took items from the pharmacy without authorisation, including: approximately five boxes of escitalopram, a prescription-only medicine; a 100 ml bottle of Verset Frenesi perfume; and a box of Sudafed tablets.
The registrant’s actions were dishonest because the registrant: asked for escitalopram to be ordered; took escitalopram without holding a valid prescription; took items despite knowing permission had not been given; and removed items and/or medication without paying for them.
The registrant re-sealed one or more boxes of escitalopram after removing medication and/or replaced the boxes.
The re-sealing was dishonest because it was intended: to give others the impression that medication remained inside the boxes; and/or to conceal the registrant’s removal of medication for personal use.
On or around 30 November 2020, the registrant ordered or caused to be ordered approximately: two boxes of 28 escitalopram 10 mg tablets; and six boxes of 28 escitalopram 20 mg tablets.
The registrant intended to use that medication personally.
That intention was dishonest because the registrant knew escitalopram was a prescription-only medicine and intended to take it despite not having a legal prescription.
On 19 June 2023, the registrant failed without reasonable cause to surrender to custody at Wigan Magistrates’ Court after having previously been released on bail in criminal proceedings.

Outcome: The existing four-month suspension was replaced, on expiry, by a Conditions of Practice Order for 12 months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care
Standard 5 – Use professional judgement
Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner
Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

This case concerned a pharmacist whose fitness to practise had previously been found impaired because of dishonest conduct in a pharmacy setting. The August 2026 hearing was not a rehearing of those allegations. It was a principal review hearing considering whether the registrant had sufficiently remediated the concerns that had resulted in a four-month suspension and whether the registrant could safely return to unrestricted pharmacy practice.

The underlying misconduct was particularly relevant to pharmacists because it involved direct access to pharmacy stock and prescription-only medication. Between approximately March and October 2020, while working as a locum pharmacist, the registrant removed approximately five boxes of escitalopram, a bottle of perfume and a box of Sudafed tablets without authorisation or payment.

Continue Reading the Full Case

Create a free account or log in to access the complete case summary.

Full allegations considered by the GPhC
Panel findings and reasoning
Outcome of the investigation
Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacist
Key professional learning points

Original Case Document

View the Full Determination Document

The original determination transcript is available to registered users.

Download the official GPhC determination
Full hearing transcript
Detailed findings of fact
Sanction reasoning
Details of the pharmacy professionals involved